Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My gay theory!!!

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by Sk8ergrl
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 
I don't think its nurture as it could be a chemical imbalance when being created. There was a program on tv of a man who was straight had a fall and woke-up gay so it could be a chemical in the brain that has changed. Or he could have been given a new life task from God when he came back to earth. I believe that we were assigned tasks before we were given vessels ( human bodies ) basically pre birth. We all have a destiny and to find our path.



nice story,

but no way am going to buy it.

it is my view that homosexuality is nurture over nature and always has been.


Nice, love to see a guy who has made his opinion and no amount of evidence can change it...Your a CHristian right... . LOL




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
The theory is based on the notion that straight people always have children and gay people never do.

Children with gay or lesbian parents were estimated to be between 6-14 million in 1990 in the US (although this could mean that one biological parent identified as LGBT).
adoption.about.com...

In 2010 two million children were raised by same-sex parents (despite same-sex households only comprising 1 percent of the population).
Same-sex households are raising 65 000 adopted children (4 percent of all adopted children).

Most of the same-sex parents were in the southern states, and Hispanics had higher statistics for both male and female same-sex households raising a child under 18.
www.nationaljournal.com...

I think if one one would analyze this further the same-sex parents would reflect the same class and race population increases or decreases as heterosexuals.
That could suggest that some populations (specifically whites) are choosing not to procreate at the same level as others.
I think globally the greatest population growth is in areas and communities where girls start having children very young, there is a low level of education amongst women, and polygamy and concurrent relationships are common for men.
Just take our Zulu President in South Africa, Jacob Zuma. He's got four current wives and an estimated 20 children.
Western people who have a conspiracy about population control should ask themselves why Western heterosexuals aren't having children at this rate, instead of pointing fingers at a tiny gay minority (who were in many ways discouraged from forming families and having kids).
Pointing the finger at gays without examining heterosexual procreation (or the lack there-of) is the real conspiracy, because it's pointing in the wrong direction.

The Old Testament has some other great recipes for fast population growth, like polygamy, concubinage, stealing women through conquest, widow inheritance, making virgins who are raped marry their rapists, and in the story of Lot (Genesis 19) incest between fathers and daughters, if nothing else is available.
I have a feeling though that most Western heterosexuals today (especially women) wouldn't like any of that very much.

Perhaps some heterosexuals are a bit unenthusiastic because of the chemicals in their food?
edit on 20-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



you make it sound like i was saying us having a built in population control is a bad thing... or unnatural at all. When if it is something like that. Being Gay couldn't be more natural... Us having 7billion people on the planet is what is unnatural, and the decline of all the other species on the planet as our pop. grew is pretty good proof of that.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by artemisminion
 


Dude, I have made my point.

I believe that homosexuality is nurture over nature, I have yet to see anything to make me think any differently.

all you have done is present a hypothesis, not a theory, that you think, as have many others before you, that homosexuality is natures way of population control.

there is no evidence to validate this hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sk8ergrl
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 
I'm sorry but your wrong. Being gay is not a choice its like a disabled person wants to be disabled come on that's just silly and your silly for believing that.



Obviously you can't read the words that i speechify with.

I did'nt say it. Early Cuyler did.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by artemisminion
 

Good or bad, I just don't think gays are a very effective means of population control, since lgtb people are increasingly having children by some means.

Perhaps the theory could work if one could show an increase of people who are exclusively gay throughout life, and even here they could choose to have kids through surrogacy, insemination or communal arrangements (which many are).

Population control in some demographics (compared to rapid growth in others) seems to be more about cultural values, ideology, religion, gender roles, expectations of wealth and so forth.

In the US that seems true for both heterosexual and same-sex households so far, with the greatest increases amongst Hispanics.

The massive movement to urban gay "ghettos" of the 1970s (built around wider sexual revolution and liberation) doesn't seem to feature as significant to gay parenting.
It seems that more rural areas with a higher focus on families have the highest numbers of same-sex households with kids.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think in future the focus on gay households (rather than who is individually lgtb), and especially gay marriage will give clearer statistics on procreation trends and whether gay identities indeed form an efficient means of population control, or the opposite.

Until now it seems that other issues override both the gay and straight issue as to which population is increasing most.

Changes in racial demographics in a country can also come with vast social and religious changes, although I won't argue here whether that's good or bad in various countries.
That's a big question for some European countries, whose heterosexuals aren't increasing sufficiently to sustain an aging population, and the immigrants are having more children.

Suffice to say that simply being lgbt doesn't make one infertile, and statistically one could also generalize and say that being white currently seems an efficient (chosen) means of population control.
edit on 20-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Faust100f
 


Protect the kids from what? us evil homosexuals? or the Straight Child abductors,rapist and Molesters Etc?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
If crowd size determined "gayness" spreading, then India and China would be the mecca for homosexuality.

And they aren't.

So, the hypothesis basically fails.

Homosexuality is simply a different wiring of the brain and its attraction.
Homo-flexable may be more about environment however.

And not everything in nature has to serve a purpose. albinos, blue verses brown eyes, different hair colors, etc. just nature deciding to do curve balls fairly consistently.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust100f
Sorry, I don't buy it? It may be genetic, the bad genetics should have died out long ago, but homosexuals had to marry a hetrosexual to hide or cover up their atavistic genetics that had been passed to them by an ancestor who never came out of the closet.

Now that Gay marriage is legal in many states, that should accelerate the extinction of these genetic defects in the general population. However, we need to restrict the adoption or procreation by married homosexuals because of the negative effect it has upon children.

Now that Gays, can be open about it, society should benefit in that those with the deviant behavior can now be readily identified, and children protected from them. John


Well played sir, well played.
How many did you snag?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by Faust100f
 


Protect the kids from what? us evil homosexuals? or the Straight Child abductors,rapist and Molesters Etc?

Fashion sense of transvestites is arguable actually. Son or Daughter, they shouldn't be exposed to a man dressed as Cher.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Interesting hypothesis. Why doe God allow stupid people to breed?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


Well if there really is a god, from his point of view we're all stupid. Why would he let any of us breed. It's like asking why we let snails breed. I dunno. They just do.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


So they fall for man made religion



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What does Drag have to do with it?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Given homosexuality is prevalent in many species its not just a human problem...it may be something more like when there are too many of one sex certain species can change gender so it maybe that part of sexual attraction can deliberately change due to some long lost ancestor in the primeval times who could go male to female and back again so the change in desire for the opposite sex would have to change and while in a lot of us we're wired to the correct orientation for biological reproduction there are those who perhaps have had a specific gene(s) switch on which is reading that theres too many people of gender x so i need to become gender y but due to millions of years the rest of the process has been lost so only the attraction part is still left encoded



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


Not a problem though is it?

I wish I could change my sex at will, I would oddly have my own baby
..hhhmmm would that baby be a clone of me?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


But when someone says "go f--- yourself" you'd be able to say "what for the 8th time today...."



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by artemisminion
 


post not offensive ... i just dont understand how sexual preferences got their own laws ... it is a sexual preference



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What does Drag have to do with it?

=buys you a sense of humor off ebay



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
all these comments people are acting as if gay people have no control over their actions, pfft, then many who hold this opinion go onto say that it is not a defect....welllllll, sorry to say but if you cant control yourself, then yeah you have got a real problem, do straight people say they have no control over who/what/or what gender they have sex with? if they do then they need some help. Can you imagine a paedophile saying sorry Im just born that way I have no control over who I have sex with? would they get any compassion? plssss, they are not born that way, they willing choose to have sex with children, so lets drop the "oh I was born gay" rubbish, no you weren't, you were born human and chose to give up your right to reproduce and have sex with people of the same gender, deal with it and stop telling others you cant control your sexual preferences, otherwise you are admitting you have a defect, take your pick, this isn't involuntary or a survival mechanism, like breathing or eating, you don't need to be gay to survive. You choose to be gay, and the problem is not in the way you were born but in your actions.

I'm not a Christian but yes I believe God doesn't want you to be gay, so those trying to say they were born that way need to firstly step up and take some responsibility for your actions.
edit on 21-7-2013 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by artemisminion
 


Dude, I have made my point.

I believe that homosexuality is nurture over nature, I have yet to see anything to make me think any differently.

all you have done is present a hypothesis, not a theory, that you think, as have many others before you, that homosexuality is natures way of population control.

there is no evidence to validate this hypothesis.



Fair enough.... it is a hypothesis your right. Well played sir
edit on 21-7-2013 by artemisminion because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join